Bioshock

I just finished playing through Bioshock and I have to say, it was a fun ride.

For those unfamiliar with this game, the premise is this: you are on an airplane that crashes into the middle of the ocean. But luckily for you, there's a strange island with a lighthouse on it. You go into the lighthouse, only to discover a bathysphere that takes you to an undersea city called Rapture. Apparently a man named Andrew Ryan conceived of Rapture as a place where people could keep what they earned without giving any of it to the government, God, or the poor, where scientists could carry out research unfettered by the petty dictates of common ethics, and people could live in a utopia.

Needless to say, things didn't work out quite that way.

The Rapture you find yourself in is a devastated battleground. Roving bands of splicers, people who have fiddled with their genetic code using a substance called ADAM, wreak havoc and try to kill you. And through it all are lumbering giants called Big Daddies leading girls called Little Sisters through the deserted streets. You have allies. You have enemies. Your goal is to pick through the debris of Rapture and try to escape alive.

I've been hearing great things about this game ever since it came out. Games For Windows gave it high marks and I can see why. From what I understand, the game is somehow based on Ayn Rand's objectivism and is supposed to be a critique of it somehow. I have to admit, I didn't get that part. But that's okay.

In terms of story, the people who created Bioshock did a great job. Rapture is a crazy place to visit with a definite storyline behind what happened in this intended utopia. Plus the journey you go through is a harrowing one. There's a massive twist in the middle (I won't say what it is) that I kind of saw coming, but I got so many details wrong I was simply delighted when it happened. In some ways, it reminded me of Knights of the Old Republic. Storywise, that is.

My only complaint is that it was too easy on easy. Yes, I know, I'm a wimp and should have started on medium, but I wanted to get a feel for the controls and how everything worked, so I played it on easy. By the time I reached the end, I could drop Big Daddies with the greatest of ease and the final boss fight took all of about three minutes. To put it another way, I never died. Not once. Usually in a game like this, I'm used to failing at least a dozen times on the way to the end.

But that doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy myself. I did. And yes, I'll be playing it again on medium. There's another ending to the story I have to see yet and I want to see if the Big Daddies are harder to drop on medium. But it might be a while. I've got something else that will be occupying my time starting next Tuesday.

Who Stole My Church?

This past Sunday, one of my parishioners came up to me after the services. She said she knew I liked reading and she had a book for me. She handed me a copy of Who Stole My Church? by Gordon MacDonald. She said it really challenged her. I can see why.

MacDonald's book is a treatise on how individual congregations can best meet the needs of those around it under the extremely thin disguise of a story. There are characters and something of a plot, but it's mostly all a conceit for MacDonald to get his point across.

The plot, if it can be called such, is this: MacDonald places himself as the pastor of a fictional church, one that recently had something of a set-back. The leadership tried to pass a series of changes to the way the church did things, only to have some of the oldest and most faithful members push back. MacDonald, rather than rail on them, suggests they meet to discuss the changes and why he feels they're necessary. The title comes from the plaintive cry of one of those members at that first meeting.

If we're trying to judge this book as fiction, it falls flat. As a matter of fact, I'd even be tempted to say that this shouldn't be called a "novel" or a "story" or anything like it. It's more like a Platonic dialogue. The characters, while distinct, are foils for MacDonald. They eventually come around to enthusiastically see things his way. The only holdout is depicted as a reactionary and something of a jerk (more on why this bothers me in a bit).

In terms of nonfiction, this book gave me a lot to think about. Lutherans (especially my kind) are a stubborn bunch. There's an old joke that goes, "How many Lutherans does it take to change a lightbulb?" "CHANGE!?!?!" We tell that amongst ourselves because it's true.

But MacDonald makes a strong case that sometimes, change is not only necessary, it's healthy and good. Every congregation should take the time to reevaluate what they're doing at one time or another, if for no other reason than to make sure that everything is still working the way it should. That process may be painful, especially if people discover that something isn't working right, but then, it's sometimes necessary to go through "growing pains."

But there is a problem with the way MacDonald presented his argument. Since he did so through a story, he could simply have all the characters come to agree with him in the end. They all become "enlightened" enough about his new, better way of doing things that they all fall in line and become enthusiastic for the new ways. The only person who doesn't is depicted in a very harsh light afterwards, so much so that MacDonald insinuates that he's almost an abusive husband and not really a Christian.

That's unfortunate, because it leaves the impression that if you don't agree with MacDonald's analysis of how churches should adapt to the 21st century, you're somehow less of a Christian. I would strongly disagree with that assessment. It might have been better if some of his "discussion partners" had ended the journey unconvinced but willing to go along with it. Or better, if some of them made it clear that they still didn't like it, still thought he was wrong, but weren't going to leave the congregation. Simply put, MacDonald set himself up for everyone to pat him on the back for his keen insight.

Had he presented his argument in a standard, non-fiction sort of way, people could evaluate his ideas and take them or leave them. Now, with the fictional story format, a person who doesn't quite buy his arguments is left with the impression that perhaps the problem isn't with the ideas, it's with them and their faith. Not cool.

In spite of that, it's still an intriguing read. I can only hope that more people read it. For people of the younger generation, it's a good insight into the way the older generation thinks. For people of the older generation, it's an argument for why "We've always done it that way!" isn't a valid argument. And for pastors, it's defintiely food for thought about how we should conduct our various ministries.

Lord of the Rings

Late last night I finished my second go-through of The Lord of the Rings. I originally read the whole thing about eight years ago before the first movie of the trilogy came out. About a month or two ago, I watched the the trilogy again and decided it was time to reread Tolkien's original.

I'm not sure what I can say about this that hasn't already been said. It's an epic masterpiece. Tolkien's language is poetic and his voice fits the mythic nature of the story.

At the same time, though, I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if Tolkien had tried to publish this book in modern times. How would a modern editor have reacted to it?

For example, Tolkien begins the book with what's basically a big info dump about hobbit history and culture. It's nothing but telling with little to no showing. As I waded through it, I kept hearing a nagging voice in the back of my head telling me, "Show, don't tell!"

The pacing of the first book also could have used some tightening up. The pace was way too slow, seeing as the story ranged over several years, from Bilbo's "eleventy-first" birthday up until the day when Frodo left the Shire for Mordor. This first book unbalances the entire story, since we sprint through those years, while the other two books seem to last just a month or two.

Recently someone on The Late Nite Jengajam commented that Peter Jackson did the right thing in the way he edited the story to adapt it into the three movies. I can't say for sure if The Lord of the Rings would have been as popular or beloved if it had been edited to suit modern tastes. Who knows? But I can say this with confidence: if you haven't taken this journey through Middle Earth yet, you should.

Gilmore Girls Post-Mortem

Thanks to the writers' strike, now thankfully over, Jill and I were looking for something to watch on TV. So we broke out Jill's collection of Gilmore Girls and started with Season One. Two nights ago, we finished off Season Seven.

That was the hardest to watch. Season Seven was painful. Longtime producer Amy Sherman-Palladino had left her creation in the hands of ... well, people who weren't her and, as a result, the magic disappeared completely. I know at the time, I decried the new writers and wished and hoped that Amy would come back to save Lorelai and Rory from the death rattle that slowly overtook them. Sadly, my prayers went unanswered.

Now that I have watched all seven seasons, I was able to see where things started to go so wrong and, as it turns out, I was a bit harsh on the new writers who took up the reigns.

It may be scandalous. It may not be polite to say it. But I think a lot of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of Amy Sherman-Palladino herself.

Hardcore Gilmore fans may think that what I'm saying is sacrilege, but I think it's true. The reason why is because the things that started the Gilmore's downward slide happened on Amy's watch.

For starters, we have the dark turn that the series took shortly after Jason Stiles was shoved out of Richard Gilmore's business. Everything seemed a bit more depressing after that point. Not insurmountable, but the shift was noticeable.

But then there's the moment when the Gilmores jumped the shark, namely Episode 21 of Season Five, "Blame Booze and Melville." Or the "Rory steals a yacht" episode. The reason I say this is because this one act really hurt the entire series.

One of the fun things of this series was the back-and-forth banter between Lorelai and Rory. Lots of pop and literary references, speedy and incisive, it was gold and helped make the show stand out. Then Rory graduated from Chilton and went off to Yale. That was a blow but a necessary one. The conversation just didn't shine as well on the phone. There were the moments when they were together, such as Friday night dinners or Rory's weekend visits to Stars Hollow, but the show suffered a little.

And then Rory steals the yacht, drops out of Yale, and she doesn't see her mom for eight episodes. It hurt the show. It hurt the characters. It started the downward spiral. And it happened on Amy Sherman-Palladino's watch.

But then Rory and Lorelai reconciled ... just in time for the next nail in the coffin to hit home, namely April Nardini.

I don't have any idea what the point of this was. April added nothing to the plot. It was just an unnecessary conflict generator that got tacked on. In some ways, it almost smacked of trying to bring in a younger demographic. Rory's off to college, Lane's got Hep Alien, there aren't any younger teenagers. So quick, bring in a Rory clone. She's precocious, she's smart, she's got a can-do mom. Sound familiar?

Maybe April would have worked if she wasn't so similar to Rory. Whatever the case, April didn't help the show. She only hurt it. And again, this happened when Amy was in charge.

One of the worst deathblows happened when Lorelai married Christopher in Paris. This happened in season seven, so Amy can't be blamed for that. But it did highlight a very ugly character trait in Lorelai, namely her immature selfishness. And that's something that Amy wrote into the character.

Think of poor Max Medina. Lorelai gets engaged to him but doesn't let him into any part of her life. She doesn't want him to discipline Rory. She seems unwilling to leave her house. She's in love with the idea of being married but not him. But at the time, it seemed to be a personality quirk, not a serious issue.

Then there's what happens with Luke. Lorelai proposes to him, but refuses to set a date because of the drama between her and Rory. Rory comes back but now Luke has cold feet because of April. In the meantime, Lorelai refuses to leave her home and, when Luke doesn't hop to for her, she sleeps with Christopher and unilaterally decides it's all over. Now it's a little more obvious.

And then there's the season seven relationship with Christopher. She jumps into a full relationship with him and seems relatively untroubled by what transpired with Luke a mere six weeks after the break-up. And when they get married on a whim, what does she do? She refuses to move. She freaks out when Christopher suggests Gigi get Rory's old room. She forces Christopher to change.

At that point, I was thorougly disgusted with Lorelai. While she's sacrificed a lot so Rory can succeed, she's also very selfish in a very ugly way. And that's not the fault of the people who took over in season seven. Amy made her that way.

By the time we reached the abysmal "haybale maze" episode, the show had fallen apart entirely. While the new writers really dropped the ball, it was only because Amy fumbled it already. The fact that The Return of Jezebel James bombed and has already been cancelled shows that Amy may have lost some of the magic she had when she first created the denizens of Stars Hollow and that special single mom and her progeny.

It's a shame. Lorelai and Rory deserved much better.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Someone needs to tell George Lucas to stop. Seriously. He needs to put away his word processor, pen and paper, dictaphone, or whatever he uses to put together these ridiculous stories.

Oh yes, I've just gotten back from seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull movie, and I am not happy.

A few caveats before we really get into it. I went into the theater with somewhat low expectations. I had heard rumblings of poor reviews and I knew that nothing Spielberg and Lucas could put together would top Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or even Last Crusade. But I hoped it would be better than this.

There were some bright spots. There were plenty of witty moments where I genuinely laughed out loud. Spielberg crafted some great chase scenes, worthy successors of what's come before. But for every good point, there was plenty to weigh down the rest.

For starters, we have the fact that the supernatural was too blatant once again. In Raiders and Last Crusade, they kept the supernatural elements "behind the scenes," so to speak, only trotting them out at the end of each movie. In Temple of Doom, though, the supernatural was everywhere and really dragged on the movie. Same thing here. The fantastical was front and center almost from the beginning and it really didn't help the story.

Second, there were far too many moments where my suspended disbelief really wanted to be ... well, unsuspended. They strained credulity. I won't go into specifics since I do not like giving out spoilers. I will say this: I don't think George Lucas has ever observed anything in the animal kingdom. Ever.

Sad to say, I wish I hadn't been so eager to go and see this one. It wasn't awful, but it wasn't good either. Indy deserved a better fate. It would have been better if Lucas had just let him ride of with Henry Senior into the desert and left it at that.

At the very least, George needs to stop. It's just that simple. After the Star Wars prequels and now this debacle, the writing is on the wall.

Pray for Steven Curtis Chapman

He just lost his daughter Maria today in a tragic car accident. What makes it truly horrible is that it was his teenage son behind the wheel.

May the empty tomb of Christ bring the Chapman family comfort in this extremely difficult time.

CSFF Blog Tour: Day Two

Yes, yes, yes, I know I'm very, very late (according to the clock above my computer, I only have fifteen minutes for this to still qualify as a Day Two post). And yes, I know that we're supposed to be blogging about MindFlights. But I recently came across a gem that I figured might be Blog Tour worthy, if for no other reason than to try to generate discussion. And as I've said before, I always try to bring new and interesting material into the tour.

According to this article, the Vatican has recently said it's okay for people to believe in aliens.

From the article:

The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted as saying the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.

"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said. "Just as we consider earthly creatures as 'a brother,' and 'sister,' why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation."

My question is this: could this be used as fuel for stoking the speculative fiction fires in Christian publishing? Yes, I know, many evangelicals won't care two figs for what a Jesuit astronomer has to say, but it certainly is interesting food for thought, yes?

At any rate, go see if everyone else did better than me today:

Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

I am optimized for hazardous nullification!

A big thank you to D.G.D. Davidson (or would it be Snuffles) over at The Sci Fi Catholic for this one. The Cyborg Name Decoder. I'm not sure which one I like best:

I also did the handle I use on different websites:

And I did my son's name as well:

So what is your name when it's decoded?

CSFF Blog Tour: Mindflights Magazine Day One

This month, we're looking at the on-line magazine dedicated to Christian sci-fi and fantasy, namely MindFlights. As they explain on their website, they "strive to provide quality fiction, poetry, and exposition, all in means that respects traditional values and Christian principles."

In the interest of fairness, I should say that I was published in one of MindFlights predecessors, so perhaps I'm a bit biased, but I think it's great that we have an outlet for sci-fi and fantasy short stories with a Christian bent. For example, On the Edge of Eternity by Steve Stanton.

Stanton's story, about asteroid miner Harlin Riley, was an engaging read. Riley's world was believable and had some depth to it, with colloquialisms and some societal insights.

That being said, Stanton could have done a slightly better job introducing a central idea of his story, namely that of the alien sprites. Here I thought it was just going to be a story about asteroid miners when out of nowhere, Stanton revealed that Riley had some sort of transdimensional alien sprite implanted in his brain. It blindsided me and since it seemed to be the central idea of Stanton's story, it might have been better to at least hint at it in the opening moments of the story.

The only other criticism I have about the story is that the ending didn't seem to grow from the ending. Given what Stanton says about Riley, I expected a different way for his story to end. Maybe I'm "Monday morning quarterbacking" ... or maybe "Monday morning armchair editing?" We need to come up with a similar term for writing.

Anyway, no matter what I might think about individual stories, it's good to be back in the somewhat familiar territory of MindFlights again.

Go see what other people have to say:

Brandon Barr
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Kameron M. Franklin
Beth Goddard
Andrea Graham
Todd Michael Greene
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Linda Wichman
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

The Reformation Polka

And hey, one more, so long as we're at it!

Martin Luther does the chicken dance

Just some random silliness. Enjoy!

Prince Caspian

Let's talk Prince Caspian.

I went with about a dozen people from my congregation this afternoon and caught a matinee.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect, given the mixed reviews I've seen. This one, for example, ticked me off since Gleiberman tripped up over the identity of the river god. Read the source material, fer cryin' out loud.

The movie itself started off slow. At least, I thought it did. Well, maybe not slow. But I question the wisdom of beginning the movie in Narnia with the birth of Miraz's son (and don't worry, none of that could conceivably be considered a spoiler). I worry that those unfamiliar with the story (Owen Glieberman, for example) might wonder where all the sons of Adam and daughter of Eve came from. Perhaps I'm being overly worried.

Things picked up after the opening. The times that the film makers engaged in dramatic license worked. I also appreciated the extra depth that the script writers added to Peter. Susan too. Kind of. I figure since she gets such a raw deal in the last book, it's a gimme.

Overall, I found it a fun movie that serves both as entertainment and as a jumping off point for deeper philosophical considerations. For example, what happens when we don't follow God and try to go our own way? We may succeed for a while, but ultimately, it will not go as smoothly.

Anyway, go see the movie. If for no other reason, than for Reepicheep. Eddie Izzard voiced him perfectly.

Another Review 3-Fer

I've been a bad boy for the past couple of months. I've been reading (as I always do), but I haven't been blogging about the books I'm reading. So I need to play catch-up on the three books that I know for sure I've read.

We'll start with Relentless by Robin Parrish. The funny thing is, I blogged about the sequel a while ago without having read it or Relentless. So I figured I'd better play catch-up.

If you aren't familiar with the Dominion Trilogy, it centers around Grant Borrows, an ordinary man who finds himself trapped in an incredible problem. He's no longer in his body. He's been "Shifted." His mind has been transferred into another person. More than that, he apparently has some incredible powers that he now has to learn to harness.

As if all that wasn't enough, Grant finds himself the target of a shadowy cabal, for they believe that he is the Bringer. Can Grant pull together the other people who have been Shifted and face down the people who are pursuing them?

Overall, this was a pretty good book. There was a lot of action and kept the plot moving pretty quickly. The story itself is very reminiscent of "X-Men" or "Heroes," so it felt like very familiar territory to me. The real downside to the novel was its familiarity and the glut of characters that occupy Parrish's story. There were simply too many to keep track of. I almost didn't want to keep reading this series. What salvaged it for me was the revelation of where the Gifteds' rings came from. So now Fearless is sitting on my TV, waiting to be read.

Next up is Enoch's Ghost by Bryan Davis.

This is the second book in Davis's Oracles of Fire series, the follow up to his phenomenal Dragons in Our Midst series. It follows the adventures of Sapphira, Walter, Ashley, and Karen, as they struggle to take down Mardon, an evil scientist who is trying to, for lack of a better term, cause all hell to break loose. Mardon, it turns out, is the son of Marduk, the man who tried to build the Tower of Babel, and is now trying to complete his father's work.

Davis's writing is clear and engaging, but the problem is, at this point, the story is so complex, it's a little confusing. It's been a long time since I read the DiOM and Eye of the Oracle. As a result, I was floundering for a little while even after reading the handy recap of the previous plot.

My only complaint is a theological one. I'm all for dancing on the edge of a tree branch in terms of speculative fiction. My worry is that Davis has leapt off into the unknown by speculating about what happens to aborted babies in the afterlife and so on. I had no problem recognizing this as speculation. I just worry that the kids reading these books might confuse fiction for Gospel truth.

And finally, we have Saint by Ted Dekker.

This one bugged me althought I'm partially to blame.

I want to make this clear: Ted Dekker is a great author. I love his story telling ability. He creates exciting, action-packed scenes that keep me reading and engaged. I could easily see these being adapted into movies and doing very well.

However...

What bugged me is the fact that this is a sequel to Showdown (which, in turn, is a sequel to the Circle Trilogy) and I had no idea until about a third of the way in.

Now I realize I'm partly to blame for that. I suppose I could have looked it up on Amazon and seen that this is listed as Book #2 in the Paradise series. Or the very tiny print on the spine that labels this as part of "The Books of History Chronicles" could have clued me in. But hey, I bought this at a bookstore; why would I go to Amazon? Or why would I inspect the spine so closely? It would have been nice if there had been some warning, because once again, I was a bit lost trying to remember who all the characters were and how they related to each other.

I'm not saying that Dekker should stop writing books in this universe. I don't mind it at all. I just wish he'd give us fair warning that that's where we're going.

So there you go. Three for the price of one. And that price is free. Can't say no to that, right? Hopefully I'll be better about posting reviews in the future, but it might be a while. For some reason, I decided I had to re-read The Lord of the Rings.

The Lutherans Song

Just a little something I put together over the past two days. Enjoy.

CSFF Blog Tour: The Begotten Day Three

I've certainly taken the long way around to get to today's review of The Begotten by Lisa T. Bergen. So here we go.

The story, as I've said, revolves around one of the lost letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. In Bergen's story, this letter sounds almost apocalyptic in nature, predicting the coming of "the Gifted," a group of individuals with spectacular spiritual gifts. But because the only copy was illuminated (i.e. illustrated), it was condemned by the iconoclasts in the eighth century.

Fast forward to the fourteenth century. Father Piero, a Catholic priest, believes the time has come. The Gifted are gathering. Lady Daria d'Angelo. Sir Gianni de Capezzana. Hasani. Each are showing incredible abilities. What purpose does God have for these Gifted individuals?

But there are dangers within and without of the Church. How will the Church react as their talents become more obvious? And what about the Sorceror? What designs does he have on the Gifted?

Bergen's story is engaging and engrossing. It's exciting to boot. I want to make this absolutely clear: I enjoyed reading this book a lot.

And yet...

Once I had finished reading it, I felt a bit dissatisfied, not for any artistic reasons but for theological reasons. If you haven't read the book, might want to leave now. Spoilers and whatnot.

For starters, we have the fact that Bergen describes "true" 1 Corinthians as a prophetic book (although, truth be told, it sounds like it's more of an apocalyptic book and yes, there is a difference), one dedicated to the predictions regarding the Gifted and their coming trials.

But this doesn't really seem to jive with what we know of "true" 1 Corinthians. Like I said two days ago, Paul gives us a little peek at the contents in 1 Corinthians 5:9, where he warns the Corinthians against sexual immorality.

If, as Bergen posits, the book is apocalyptic/prophetic, then such practical advice would stick out and be out of place.

Second, Paul doesn't seem to be all that big on apocalyptic stuff. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:19, he says "I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand in a tongue." Now granted, he is speaking about the gift of tongues here (obviously), but I think the principle applies to apocalyptic visions as well. Why would Paul, who seemed very practical, resort to mystical visions in a letter and then, in its sequel, decry it?

2 Corinthians 12 also would seem to argue against the first letter being apocalyptic. Paul says that he knows "a person in Christ" who was caught up to the third heaven. Based on 2 Corinthians 12:7, most Biblical scholars think that this "person in Christ" who was caught up to the third heaven was Paul himself.

But notice what Paul does. Rather than boast about his vision (or even give a hint as to what he saw), he said he'd rather boast about his weakness and his mysterious "thorn in the flesh." It seems out of character, given those two passages, for Paul to engage in mystical visions and record them. In my mind, it'd be more likely he'd keep them private.

My second problem with the book is with the concept of the Gifted themselves. It seems to fly in the face of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 12. Paul seems to warn them off of the idea of "super gifts." Instead, he seems to say that all gifts are equally important. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but the idea of these superior gifts being given to a select few doesn't seem to match up with Paul's message.

And finally, we have the way the Gifted behave doesn't strike me as real. It almost feels like a group of non-denominational Americans somehow got transported back into 14th century Italy. Bergen did an admirable job of bringing the era alive (although I did have to look up what "handfasting" was); it just seemed odd that a group of 14th century Roman Catholics would abandon almost all the trappings of their worship.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the book. But much of it rang very wrong to me and it kept me from truly loving it.

But that's just my opinion. Go check out what the others are saying:

Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Michael Greene
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Pamela Morrisson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

CSFF Blog Tour: The Begotten Day Two

Yesterday I did a Corinthians chronology. Today, in connection to Lisa T. Bergen's book The Begotten, I thought I'd talk about how the New Testament canon was put together.

There's a lot of misconceptions that a specific church council or singular individual put together the New Testament (the most egregious is that contained within The DaVinci Code, which states it was the Emperor Constantine who twisted Scripture to his own nefarious purpose). This simply isn't true.

Starting in the second century, the Church started disucssing which books belonged in the canon. Just so everyone is on the same page, "canon" comes from the Greek word kanon, which refers to a measuring stick. The question of the canon is this: which books measure up? Which were in? Which were out?

This discussion was prompted by a number of internal problems. For starters, you had the gnostic Christians who produced their own scriptures, none of which were in line with the orthodox faith. Also problematic was the work of Marcion, a man from Rome who had his own ideas about Christianity. He saw Paul as the best (and only true) of the apostles. The rest had been corrupted by their Jewish roots. Marcion believed that Christianity was a radical break from Judaism. For that reason, Marcion picked and choosed which books he liked. Gone was the entire Old Testament. Gone were three of the Gospels, leaving only a heavily edited version of Luke. Gone were all of the other books save Paul's letters.

In the light of the mounting problem, the Church began a lengthy discussion about which books were being used where. Church leaders wrote to each other and compared lists. In the early days, there were a few extra books included, such as The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache, but these were eventually dismissed.

By the time of Constantine, the process was pretty much over. There were a few question marks (people weren't sure if books like 2 Peter, Jude, James, or 2 & 3 John belonged in). By the time of the Council of Carthage, in 397 AD, the discussion had pretty much petered out and the Council said the matter was closed.

So the question is, what criteria did the early church use in sorting through the books?

Well, that's the thing. They are never explicitly stated. But working backwards, there seemed to be four criteria used:

1) Apostolic origin - The book had to have been produced by either an apostle (i.e. Matthew, John, Peter, or Paul) or an "honorary" apostle (i.e. Mark, Luke, James, Jude), someone who has a close connection to an apostle.

This is why some of the books were excluded. For example, The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache were both fine books and the early church fathers encouraged people to use them as devotional reading. But because neither were produced by apostles, they were excluded.

2) Orthodoxy - This is the main reason why many of the books got excluded, especially the ones produced by the gnostics. While these books claimed to be written by the apostles, their heretical content got them nixed.

A good case in point: there was a "Gospel of Peter" that floated around and was quite popular, even to the point where it was read in worship. But then a bishop named Serapion realized that it contained docetic beliefs. The Gospel lost its popularity after that and was no longer used.

3) Universal acceptance - Simply put, the whole church (or at least a vast majority) had to accept the book and use it.

4) Usefulness for the Church as a whole - A book had to be useful to everyone to be included. For example, we could have Paul's laundry list. It's written by Paul, there's nothing heretical in it, and everyone accepts it. Well, it probably wouldn't make it in because, really, what good would it be aside from a historical curiousity?

The reason I bring this up in connection with The Begotten is because of Bergen's main premise, that "true" 1 Corinthians somehow wasn't included in the New Testament canon and only one copy survived.

Could it have happened? Possibly. The fact that we don't have "true" 1 Corinthians and the "Letter of Tears" shows that Paul's writing could be and were lost. And it's certainly understandable that the Church would have problems with it if it surfaced again.

Tomorrow's the last day and I'll talk about the plot of the book since I've taken such a long time to lead up to it. In the meantime, go check out what other people are saying.

Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Michael Greene
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Pamela Morrisson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

CSFF Blog Tour: The Begotten Day One

This month, we're looking at The Begotten by Lisa T. Bergen. It's an interesting speculative historical piece centered around one of the lost books to the Corinthians.

What's that you say? You didn't know that there were lost books to the Corinthians? Why yes, it's true.

It's actually interesting that we're doing this book this month because I'm in the midst of a marathon Bible study series with my congregation on 1 & 2 Corinthians, so this subject is fresh in my mind. Since I always aim to have unique material in this blog tour, let's talk about the chronology of the Corinthian letters. How do the books we call 1 & 2 Corinthians fit into the scheme of things?

Before I begin, I should mention that a lot of this is built on speculation. To put it bluntly, this is educated guesswork. With that final caveat, let's begin:

1) Paul writes "true" 1 Corinthians - We know from 1 Corinthians 5:9 that Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthian Christians before the one we call 1 Corinthians. Apparently in "true" 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote about associating with sexually immoral people. Sadly, this letter is lost to the ages.

Or is it? Some Biblical scholars believe that a fragment of it survives, in all places, within 2 Corinthians. Some Biblical scholars believe that 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is a piece of the lost first letter. It certainly matches the theme that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 5:9, focusing on not being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Not only that, but this portion of 2 Corinthians sticks out like a sore thumb. Try reading 2 Corinthians 6:11-13, skip over 6:14-7:1, and pick up again at 7:2-4. It flows together, doesn't it?

Is it possible? Sure. The first collection of Paul's letters isn't mentioned until the 90s (obviously not the 1990s, the just-plain 90s). A lot could happen in the forty years between the time the letters were written and when they were collected. A bit of the lost letter could have been tucked into the text of 2 Corinthians and some dutiful copiest wound up merging it all together.

Does this change whether or not 2 Corinthians is the inspired Word of God? Of course not. But it certainly is interesting.

2) The Corinthians send Paul a return letter. From the way Paul lays out the early chapters of 1 Corinthians that the Corinthians sent him some questions that they wanted answered. Along with this letter came reports that the Corinthians were a fractured, fighting church, one in need of some correction.

3) Paul writes our 1 Corinthians. In response to these questions, Paul writes the letter we call 1 Corinthians. In it, he deals with such diverse topics as factionalism within the church, lawsuits among believers, sexual relationships and marriage, food sacrificed to idols, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection of the dead.

4) The arrival of the pseudo-Judaizers. This is my name for this bunch and it may not have even happened. But based on the tone of 2 Corinthians and some of its content, it's possible that a group of people showed up in Corinth who denigrated Paul's ministry and questioned his identity, calling, and integrity as an apostle. I call them the "pseudo-Judaizers" because they sound similar to the group Paul describes in Galatians but apparently without the circumcision obsession.

5) Paul's bad visit. Based on what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians, it sounds as though Paul took a swing through the region of Achaia. He may have originally planned on visiting Corinth twice, but the first visit did not go well. We don't know exactly what happened; Acts doesn't mention this trip and Paul doesn't go into great detail (which makes sense; he was there, the Corinthians were there, why tell them what they already know?). We do know that things did not go well, so badly that Paul canceled his second visit, leading his opponents to question whether or not Paul's word could be trusted. See 2 Corinthians 1:15-2:2.

6) Paul writes the "Letter of Tears." Like "true" 1 Corinthians, we don't have a copy of this letter. Probably. But I'll get to that in a little bit. At any rate, Paul writes a third letter to the Corinthians, a painful letter that Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians 2:3-4.

But is the "Letter of Tears" really lost? Some Biblical scholars don't think so. Again, they believe that a good chunk of it is preserved in 2 Corinthians, namely chapters 10-13.

That makes sense, if you think about it. If Paul's credibility was attacked by his opponents during his "bad visit," he'd want to defend himself. And since 2 Corinthians 10-13 is a defense of his apostolic ministry, it fits. Again, the letter could have been misplaced and copied into what we call 2 Corinthians and again, this doesn't change whether or not it's God's Word.

At any rate, Paul apparently sent this letter off with his partner, Titus, and then settled in to wait.

7) Paul goes looking for Titus. But apparently Paul couldn't just wait. Even though he was in the fertile mission field of Troas, he couldn't focus on the task at hand. He went out to find Titus and find out what happened in Corinth. (2 Corinthians 2:12-13)

Much to his joy, he found Titus with an excellent report. The "Letter of Tears" cut the Corinthians to the quick. They wanted to be reconciled with Paul.

8) Paul writes 2 Corinthians. In response to this good news, Paul sends them a fourth letter, the one we call 2 Corinthians. In it, he thanks God for the Corinthians new attitude and gives them instructions about the collection he's taking for the mother church in Jerusalem.

There you go. The book we call 1 Corinthians is really 2 Corinthians. What we call 2 Corinthians should really be called 4 Corinthians. The missing books might be contained in 2 Corinthians (or might not be).

So what does this have to do with The Begotten?

Bergen's story centers around "true" 1 Corinthians, the missing first letter. She posits that in this letter, Paul prophesies about a group called "the Gifted," people with phenomenal spiritual gifts that will come forth at a certain time to do God's will. Apparently only one copy of the letter survived and it was nearly destroyed during the work of the iconoclasts.

An interesting concept, one that we'll look at further tomorrow. Kind of. With a minor digression.

In the meantime, go check out what other people are saying:

Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Michael Greene
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Pamela Morrisson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

ACFW Genesis Contest

As CSFF Blog Tour Overlord Rebecca Luella Miller said in a comment in my half-baked eulogy for GFW Magazine, I do have some pretty good news.

I'm a finalist in the 2008 ACFW Genesis contest. I and five other people made it into the finals for the Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Allegory category.

I was a bit shocked. I knew there were quite a few entrants (I forget the exact number right now) and I figured I didn't have a chance. I'm not complaining. The first round judges had some very complimentary things to say (one in particular) and so now I need to finish polishing it up and send it off for the next round.

Sadly, I won't find out how I do until September when the ACFW Conference comes to Minnesota, but my wife and I have already found a babysitter so we can be at the banquet. I doubt I'll win, but it'll certainly be fun to find out.

R.I.P. GFW

One of the magazines I've enjoyed for the past several years was Computer Gaming World, which was recently rechristened Games For Windows. I loved getting it every month. The reviews were always helpful, the articles insightful and thought provoking. I've even become a regular listener to their (almost) weekly podcast, even though I can't condone half of the things they say every week.

So you can imagine my distress when I learned tonight that Games for Windows has folded. This really stinks. This is the magazine that clued me in to such gems as Psychonauts and warned me off of such half-baked stinkers such as Evil Genius). I looked forward to each issue as it helped me learn more about a favorite past-time of mine. It's where I first learned of Spore and is the reason why I bought Bioshock and The Orange Box (although I do need to upgrade my computer to play the former).

The sad thing is that while Jeff Green bravely predicts this has a silver lining, I'm not sure it does for me. I'm not that much of an on-line denizen apart from Roosterteeth.com. I preferred getting my gaming news via snail mail. It meant I could enjoy it at my own pace in a comfy chair. I'm not sure I'll make the jump to 1UP.com.

So I guess this is good-bye, GFW. I wish it could have ended some other way.

Spore Delayed Again!

I can hardly believe it! According to this press release from Maxis, the videogame Spore is going to be delayed for another six months! This kind of yo-yo, on again, off again release date nonsense has got to stop and it has to stop now. They've delayed this product so many times it's not even funny anymore.

CSFF Blog Tour: OEDSD Day Three

So I fell down on the job yesterday. I didn't post anything about On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness by Andrew Peterson. My bad. I really didn't have anything to add about it. That shouldn't be taken as any sort of indictment against the book. It's more an indication that I've been fried for the past week what with a head cold, Holy Week, and a son who learned the joys of projectile vomiting yesterday.

But I'm back today with the following: in the spirit of the silliness of On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness, I offer my top five list of the biggest jokes in the Bible:

5) Jacob's Limp - One of the unfortunate things about translations is that you often lose the flavor of the Biblical text in question. For example, many of the Old Testament writers enjoyed jokes and play on words. Nowhere is this more evident than in Genesis 32:22-32, the story of Jacob wrestling with God.

For those of you who don't remember it, Jacob is scared out of his mind because he'll have to face Esau, the brother he ripped off not just once, but twice. He stays up all night and winds up wrestling with God. God even cheats by wrenching Jacob's hip out of joint but Jacob won't let Him go until He blesses him. And so God changes Jacob's name to Israel and we're told that he limped away.

So why is this a joke? Because "Jacob" means "crooked" and "Israel" can mean "straight" (among other things). So when Jacob was crooked he walked straight. When Jacob became "straight" he walked crooked.

Here's the thing about Hebrew word-jokes: they're never funny.

4) Isaiah's son's name - In a related vein, names in the Old Testament are rife for humor as well. They always describe the circumstances of the child's birth or the individual's character. A few quick examples: Isaac means "he laughs" (very appropriate, given how both Abraham and Sarah laughed at the idea of being parents). Joseph means, in essence, "give me another!" This reflects Rachel's desire for a second son fairly well, don't you think? Elijah, the prophet who went toe-to-toe with the priests of Baal and won, means "The Lord is God," a good summary of his ministry.

But then there's Isaiah's son. I sympathize with him because his name was an object lesson for the people of Israel.

I'm a pastor's kid and I remember how embarrassing it was when my dad used me as a sermon illustration. But at least my embarrassment was temporary. Isaiah's kid had to live with it his whole life.

What am I talking about? In Isaiah 8:1-4, God instructs Isaiah to name his son "Maher-shalal-hash-baz," for "Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." It turns out that "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" means "quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil."

Poor guy!

3) Ehud the Left-Handed Judge - This has been one of my favorite stories for a long time. I was first told it in the fifth grade by my mother in, of all things, a mid-week Bible class, because she wanted to show us that the Bible had some wild stories in it.

If you're not familiar with this one, it's in Judges 3:12-30. Basically Ehud was raised up to fight the Moabites and the way he did it was ... rather unique.

Since Ehud was left handed, he strapped a foot-and-a-half long sword to his right thigh. He then visited King Eglon of Moab to deliver Israel's tribute. Eglon's guards, apparently assuming that Ehud was right handed, only checked his left thigh for weapons.

Crack security staff, no?

Ehud then told Eglon he had "a message from God" for him. As soon as Eglon ordered his advisors out, Ehud drew his sword and stabbed Eglon. The Moabite king, it turns out, was so fat that Ehud lost his sword in him. Ehud left and locked the door behind him.

Eglon's servants, upon discovering that the doors were locked, jumped to the conclusion that Eglon was in the bathroom. Because you apparently don't interrupt the Moabite king's "private time," Ehud was able to escape and rally the troops to fight the Moabites.

Dead serious. Everything I just said is in the Bible. Look it up for yourself.

2) Paul's hyperbolic statement regarding the Judaizers - The Old Testament isn't the only place to find humor. This one's really brief but always makes me chuckle.

In the book of Galatians, Paul has to deal with a group we call the "Judaizers." The Judaizers were Jewish Christians who believed that before Gentiles could become Christian, they had to first become good Jews. That included getting circumcized. So they went out and preached their version of the Gospel, encouraging Gentile Christians to ... well, go under the knife.

Needless to say, Paul was not happy with this development, especially since some of the Galatian Christians fell for it. He railed against them for falling back under the Law when they were free. But he saved the coup de grace for Galatians 5:12, where he basically says that he wishes the Judaizers would just finish the job and emasculate themselves.

That's right, Paul isn't too scared to work blue!

That brings us to the #1 joke in the Bible, the one that always makes me laugh:

1) The Empty Tomb - Let's face it, this is the biggest joke in the Bible, bar none. But before anyone surfs away in a rage because I'm a heretic, let me explain. It's not that the joke is on us, it's that the joke is on sin, death, and the devil.

Because if you think about it, that unholy Trinity probably thought they had won on Good Friday when Jesus died. They thought they had killed God's Son and defeated Him. They likely were ready to dance on His grave. But then, on Easter Sunday, Jesus rose and showed that the joke was on them. They had really lost and now, as St. Paul joyfully declares in 1 Corinthians 15:57 - "He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

So we can laugh with joy because He is risen!

There you go. Next month, come back for a rather interesting historical fiction book, one that I'm in the middle of reading. I may have a bit to say about it, maybe I won't. We'll just have to see.

In the meantime, go check out what other people are saying:

Sally Apokedak
Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Green
Jill Hart
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Margaret
Rachel Marks
Shannon McNear
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
Deena Peterson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Donna Swanson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Jason Waguespac
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

CSFF Blog Tour: On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness Day One

This month we take a look at the tongue-twistingly entitled On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness by Andrew Peterson.

I have to be honest, when I first read the title on the blog tour schedule, I had a sinking feeling about it. It seemed so redundant that I was a bit worried I was in for a stinker.

When I received my copy, I looked it over and the sinking feeling grew. I remember thinking The only way this title would work is if this is supposed to be a silly book.

So I cracked open the book to the first page: "A Brief Introduction to the World of Aerwiar." Reading how this mythical land received its name made me chuckle.

Moving on to the next section: "A Slightly Less Brief Introduction to the Land of Skree." That seemed a little weird and made me smile even more as I read about the geography of Skree and then its history.

Tucking that under my belt, I turned the page to discover: "An Introduction to the Igiby Cottage (Very Brief)." And as Peterson explained how the Igibys were all miserable in spite of the fact that they listened to wild tales from their grandfather, who enjoyed to smoke his pipe and so on, I felt much better about the title.

For this is, indeed, a very silly book.

That is by no means a complaint. Instead, it made the book extremely enjoyable. The story follows the three Igiby children, Janner, Tink, and Leeli, as they are caught up in a crazy adventure, pitting them against the dreaded Fangs of Dang, the minions of Gnag the Nameless (a delightful oxymoron if I ever saw one).

The story itself kept moving as the Igibys find themselves tumbling from one crisis to another, trying to figure out who they are and why the Fangs are so interested in their family. What connection do they have with long-destroyed Anniera? The humor definitely kept the plot moving and made for a fun read.

I only had two gripes about the book. First was the fact that I saw the "twist" coming about a hundred pages in. I don't want to go into too much detail lest I give it all away. Since this book seems to be geared for kids, though, that's understandable and acceptable.

Second were the footnotes. Peterson included notes about culture, history, songs, and other such matters all throughout the text. These notes, so far as I could tell, had little or nothing to do with the actual story. Perhaps they were intended as a humorous way to increase immersion, but they distracted me from the story. That's probably just me, but it did bug me.

But it's still a fun, quick read and sure to be a great story to share with your kids.

Be sure to check out what the others are saying on the tour:

Sally Apokedak
Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Valerie Comer
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Green
Jill Hart
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Margaret
Rachel Marks
Shannon McNear
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Pamela Morrisson
Deena Peterson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Cheryl Russel
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Donna Swanson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Jason Waguespac
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Venus Needs Men

I always enjoy a bizarre board game. The more pieces, the more complex the rules, the better. I could probably do a whole month's worth of posts on some of my favorites, but tonight, I got to try a new one, namely Venus Needs Men. If you like '50s sci-fi, this is a game that you should enjoy.

The premise is simple: the players take charge of an alien race (Venusians, Martians, Plutonians, the denizens of Ganymede or Titan). You can also be in charge of Earth's defenses. If you're one of the alien races, your goal is to build spaceships, fly them to earth, and abduct as many humans as you can while fighting off your opponents. If you're the Earthlings, you're out to protect as many of your people as you can.

Jill and I bought this for her brother for his birthday a few months back (he likes complex games as well) and we had the chance to break it out tonight.

There are two sets of rules for the game, the "basic" and "enhanced." Tonight we tried out the basic rules. You can basically build new ships, move them, land them, abduct humans, and then head home with your prizes. If you happened to wind up near your opponents, you could attack them as well.

The Zap cards added some extra fun. These could be used to force opponents to skip turns, destroy their ships, or otherwise mess with them. It helped break up the simple play. Oftentimes we found ourselves pushing the little plastic ships around on the board and picking up the little "population chips."

While we didn't try the enhanced rules this time, we will in the future. It appears to add a layer of strategy to it as it tosses in special abilities (such as the Martian ability to take control of opponent's ships or the Titans' ability to infect humans) and technology upgrade cards.

There were a few drawbacks to the game, namely some holes in the rules. For example, there was some initial confusion regarding combat. The "quick reference" cards were vague enough that we weren't sure what constituted a successful attack. The rules did clarify things. We were also unsure what happened to abducted humans if the ship they were on was destroyed.

So if you like kitschy sci-fi, this game is probably for you. And if you do play it, you probably will want to skip right to the enhanced rules.

The Return of Jezebel James

Amy Sherman-Palladino, shame on you!

I guess it's just one of those nights. First it's Temple of Doom, now it's The Return of Jezebel James. What the heck was she thinking? The speed talking of Gilmore Girls, but with none of the wit and a laugh track that makes me want to smash my head against a wall.

And Parker Posey? Annoying as all get out.

And as long as we're handing out shame, Scott Cohen needs a heaping helping as well. He deserves better than this. Mr. Medina, no!

With any luck, this trainwreck will be over soon and Sherman-Palladino can find a better idea.

Temple of Doom

So here's an odd tidbit about myself. I never watched Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

When I was a child, my parents forbade my siblings and me from watching it due to the graphic scenes and other such nonsense. That irked me a bit when I was younger because I figured I could handle whatever was in the movies.

But when I grew older, I never bothered to watch it. At the time, I just didn't have the desire. Other movies to watch. And again, when I became an adult, I never watched it, even after I bought the special collectors' edition a few years ago.

Tonight, I broke my record. I have now watched said movie. And I can honestly say that I've seen it one time too many.

Incomprehensible, an antiheroic Indy, all of it just made me wish I had kept my record going.

98,695

Tonight I finished the third draft of a book I'm now calling The Last Expedition. I've talked about this one before. I didn't reach my goal of 100,000 words, but 1,305 off is pretty close. Besides, that count is going to fluctuate when I begin the rewriting process. Sections will be cut, others will be added. Who knows what the count will be when I'm done.

So the next step is to set it aside for my mandatory two month minimum cool-down period. In mid-May or so, I'll come back to it with fresh eyes (hopefully). My goal is to have it ready to go by the end of the year, but we'll see.

Now I'm going to take a break for a day or two (mostly so I can go see my folks and siblings on Sunday and Monday), and then it'll be time to hit my next project: Caiaphas.

Marcher Lord Press

I don't know when this was announced, but today I noticed that Marcher Lord Press announced their opening line-up of books, all of which will be available on October 1st.

No, none of them are mine. Not yet anyway.

But I'm planning on buying 'em all. Go read the summaries. I think you'll want to as well.

And while we're at it, check out these cool prizes that are being given away. I'm glad I signed up as soon as I could. I wish I could sign up some more. But if you haven't yet, be sure you register today.

Symphony of Secrets

So I'm on a major Sharon Hinck kick, I guess. Finished reading The Restorer's Journey recently. And this morning, I finished reading Symphony of Secrets.

Like I said, I went to the gala opening a week ago. Jill read the book first and then passed it on to me afterwards. And this proved to be a fast, satisfying read as well.

Sharon Hinck puts together a very nice cozy mystery centered around concert flutist Amy Johnson. Amy is a single mother who finally gets her big break: she is able to join the Minneapolis Symphony. But then everything else spirals out of control. Her daughter, Clara, not only joins the (gasp!) cheerleading squad but she also starts to ask some uncomfortable questions about her father, ones that dredge up painful memories. Her friend, Lena, has converted to Christianity and is putting pressure on her to come to church (pressure that pops up in an unexpected way). And worst of all, the symphony is floundering as an unknown individual is out to sabotage everything. Amy does her best to deal with the mystery, but her efforts seem to only make things worse.

Amy is a prickly musician through and through. Like many of Sharon Hinck's characters, Amy feels inadequate in many of her roles. But unlike Sharon's other characters, Amy isn't a Christian. Not even close. She has definite First Commandment issues since she "worships" music as her god. The Christianity is not as blatant as in the Becky Miller or Restorer books but it is there.

One of the best things about this book is that I didn't see the solution coming. Well, that's not true. I had my suspicions, but Sharon created enough plausible suspects that I couldn't say for certain. The musician jokes added some spice to the story (and I especially appreciated the fact that the jokester was a trombone player. Man after my own heart). In short, if more Amy Johnson books come out, they'll be a great addition to the Sharon's pantheon of books.

Time for a Writing Update

So it's been a while since I updated the few readers who trickle into my blog on how my writing projects are going. Here we go:

The Return of the Mourning Dove

I finished the first draft of this fantasy novel late last year (in September or October, if memory serves). I had put it on the shelf to let it cool so I could take an objective look at it and begin rewriting it. Because of the move to South Saint Paul, I have not had the chance to start on it yet.

But here's a picture of the manuscript in all 100,000 words of its glory:

I really need to get to work on that soon.

The Last Expedition

I've mentioned my Christian sci-fi trilogy before. Well, I'm about two-thirds of the way through the first draft of version #3 of book 1. Confusing? Let's review.

I originally wrote The Leader's Song trilogy as one long book (easily 300,000 words long). When I realized that the sheer size would scare off publishers, I decided to chop it up into three books, namely The Rune Enigma, Exile, and Return to the Fold.

At the 2006 ACFW Conference, several people commented that there were structural problems with the books. I debated for a long time how to fix said structural problems and finally decided to tell the story in a linear fashion. The first two books would deal with what I've referred to as "the ancient story." The third book would tell the "modern story."

Back in January, I made a New Year's Resolution to write every day. And my first project would be the first volume in the rewritten Leader's Song trilogy. Since The Rune Enigma, the original title, referred to events in the "modern story," I scrapped it in favor of The Last Expedition.

In essence, this new version has three parts: The Conservatory, Target Four, and Target Ten. Target Ten is basically the last 30,000 words of The Rune Enigma and I figure I can save them with minor tweaks and updates to get everything to blend.

About two days ago, I finished work on The Conservatory portion. It clocks in at a little over 40,000 words. That leaves me with Target Four, which will hopefully be about 30,000 words long when I'm done.

The real problem is that I'm behind. I had hoped to have the entire project done at the end of February. Obviously I didn't quite make it. So now I'm upping my daily quota from "any writing" to "at least 1,000 words (preferrably 2,000)."

So there you go.

The Restorer's Journey

A week ago, my lovely wife, wonderful son, and I went to the book launch for Sharon Hinck's latest opus, Symphony of Secrets. But since Jill and I had a copy of said book already, I purchased her other latest release, The Restorer's Journey. One of the guests at the gala said that he had gotten a copy of this book and read it in two days.

And now, so have I.

Susan Mitchell and her son, Jake, go back to the People of the Verses but things go decidedly awry as Susan falls into the hands of enemies intent on destroying her and Jake ... well, let's just say that Jake has problems of his own which I won't divulge because I try not to give out too many spoilers.

To put it bluntly, I couldn't put this book down. Once I got going, I had to keep reading to find out what would happen. Hinck constructed the book to compel readers to keep going by spending a few chapters with Susan and then a few chapters with Jake. The reason why this worked so well is because it'd keep you reading. She'd end a section describing what was happening to Susan on a dramatic note, which propelled me into the section on Jake. I'd want to read Jake's section quickly, but by the time I was halfway through Jake's section, I'd be into his story again and wanting to keep going with that. But then Susan's story would come back and I'd read through her story to get to Jake's adventures... You get the idea.

Part of the fun with the Restorer series (and all of Sharon's books, for that matter) is the fact that she always has an interesting point to make about faith. In The Restorer's Son, for example, she vividly portrayed a person wrestling with God. Or sword fighting, as it were. This time, Sharon gave me some food for thought on the question of evil. I won't say what that thought was because I'd rather you go and find it for yourself.

So make sure you pick this one up. Just be ready for a marathon reading session.